Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Dy. Cit Vs. Natural Gas Co. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT44(Mum.)

In this revenue's appeal, which is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 28-3-2000 for the assessment year 1997-98, following grievances have been raised : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest paid to HDFC of Rs. 71,939 which was made by the assessing officer on the ground that the payment was made due to infraction of law.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 76,74,436 being deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, on account of the loans received from Phoenix Distributors (P) Ltd." As far as first grievance of the revenue is concerned, the impugned disallowance was made by the assessing officer by making rather cryptic observation as follows : "The assessee has paid Rs. 45,32,422 as interest to HDFC. Out of this, Rs. 71,939 is penal interest. Penal interes...

Mrs. Marianinha Fernandes Vaz Vs. Mr. Peter Fernandes and Mrs. Irene C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom81; 2006(2)ALLMR119; (2006)108BOMLR214

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is Plaintiffs Second Appeal, arising from Special Civil Suit No. 129 of 1989/A and was admitted by order of this Court dated 8/9/2000 on several questions, as substantial questions of law, involved in this Second Appeal. 2. At the time of hearing Shri Rao, the learned Counsel on behalf of Second Appeal submitting that the Second Appeal is maintainable only against a decree a 'Decree' as defined Under Section 2(2) read with Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. In support of his submission Shri Rao has relied upon the case of Madan Naik v. Mst. Hansubala Devi and Ors. : AIR1983SC676 . 3. It may be stated that the plaintiff No. 1 is the sister of defendant No. 1. They were the owners of a Mundkarial house bearing number E-239, situated in Survey number 43/5 of village Taleigao, which they subsequently purchased jointly by deed dated 23/1/1987. As relations between them got strained, plaintiff No. 1 filed the suit and subsequently got her husband/plaintiff No. 2 impl...

Mayur Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(194)ELT402(Bom)

1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Heard Mr. Kantawala in support of this petition. Mr. Mishra appears for the respondents.3. The petitioner had applied for the licence under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book [DEPB] Scheme at an earlier point of time and on being denied the same, he had filed a Writ Petition bearing No.2383 of 2005. A single judge who heard that matter in vacation was informed that some investigation was going on about the export and genuineness by the petitioner concerning the same and it will be completed within a period of two weeks. The counsel for the respondents fairly stated that if nothing was found against the petitioner, necessary no objection certificate will be issued to the petitioner.4. Now, it appears that the Additional Commissioner of Customs (DEPB) who is an appropriate officer had written to the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade informing him by letter dated June 22, 2005 that the department have no objection for issuance of the licence to the petit...

Datta Rajaram Bhosle Vs. Smt. Kavita Datta Bhosle

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom145; 2006(6)ALLMR375

N.A. Britto, J.1. This could be considered as defendant's second appeal arising from the defendant's Civil Suit filed by him for divorce on the grounds available to the defendant under the Law of Divorce namely, cruelty or ill-treatment, adultery and desertion or abandonment of conjugal domicile. This second appeal was admitted by Order of this Court dated 19-4-2002 on substantial questions of law which are enumerated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of para 8 of the Memorandum of Appeal. It is not necessary to reproduce them herein.2. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-wife married the defendant-husband on 21-3-1990 and came to reside at the defendant's house at Pomburpa where she had to live with the defendant and his two unmarried sisters. A child was born to them on 16-4-1991. The plaintiff on or about 12-4-1990 went to her mother's house at Cumbarjua and thereafter when both of them namely, the plaintiff-wife and the defendant-husband attended a wedding at Mapusa, the former accomp...

Alpa Resins and Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we take up the appeals itself with the consent of both the sides.2. After hearing Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari & Shri Balbir Singh appearing for the appellant & Shri S.S. Bhagat (SDR) appearing for the Revenue, we find that the issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether duty should be demanded on the basis of the wholesale price of the goods under Section 4(l)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 4A on the basis of the MRP printed on the vials containing nail polishes in declared quantities. Revenues contention is inasmuch as appellant has printed MRP on the vails, provisions of Section 4A would get invoked.3. On the other hand the appellants contention is that they have mentioned MRP only to remove doubts and not as a mandatory condition under the provisions of Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976.Relying upon the Boards Circular No. 625/16/2002-CX., dated 28-2-2002, wherein i...

Nelton India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorities below have rejected the claim for refund of Rs. 2,42,403/- being the duty paid by the appellants on plastic waste and scrap during the period from 18-5-95 to August, 1997 on the ground that duty was correctly paid by them on the scrap as the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 89/95-C.E., dated 18-5-95 claimed by the appellants was not available to them and therefore, the question of refund of excise duty did not arise. The ground on which it has been held that the duty was correctly paid on plastic waste and scrap is that the proviso to the Notification exempting waste and scrap itself stipulates that nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to waste, sparing and scrap cleared from a factory in which any other excisable goods other than exempted goods are also manufactured, and the factual position is that the assessees were manufacturing both excisable as well as exempted goods in their factory.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who held that the demand is time barred.2. The respondent manufactures cables. He removed goods said to be aluminium wire rods, without payment of duty, under Rule 57(3) of the Central Excise Rules to another person for conversion into aluminium ingots and return. The Department contended that the goods cleared by the respondent fell in the category of scrap and therefore should have been cleared on payment of duty under Rule 57F(5) whereas the respondent cleared the same without payment of duty. The Additional Commissioner who adjudicated the case confirmed the demand raised under proviso to Section 11(A) invoking larger period of limitation. The period of dispute is 11.11.1994 to 30.3.1995. Show cause notice was issued on 18.5.1996.3. The Revenue contends that the respondent cleared scrap of aluminium by describing it as remnants of aluminium rods classifiable under sub-heading 7601.30 of CETA whereas t...

ichalkaranji Machine Centre Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant is absent. We have accordingly heard the Ld D.R. Shri S.S. Bhagat and gone through the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the appeal on account of heavy rains in the month of July, 2005.2. In view of the above, we condone the delay and list the stay petition on 12.12.2005....

Menon and Menon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case duty demand of Rs. 45,77,673/- has been confirmed together with interest against the appellants herein on the ground of inclusion of the value of items supplied free by M/s. BEML to them, in the assessable value of wagons and cleared by the appellants to M/s.BEML during the period in dispute. Penalty of amount equal to duty has also been imposed and land, plant, building machinery etc. of the appellant have been ordered to be confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), hence this appeal.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner in the adjudication order relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Union of India to hold that the appellants were required to pay duty on the free supply items.However, as rightly pointed out by the appellants before us, the decision in the Burn Standard Co. Ltd. case has been subsequently distinguished by the Apex Court in Internati...

Suprabha Protective Products P. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the pre-condition of deposit of duty of Rs. 19,61,4007-and equivalent amount of personal penalty imposed on the appellants in respect of paper bags being manufactured and cleared by them claiming the benefit of Notification 101/94. Revenue's contention is that the subject notification is not applicable inasmuch as the same is available to cartons, boxes, containers and cases, whereas the appellants' product is paper bags which are not covered by any of the expressions in the notification. On this, the appellants have contended that the 'container' includes paper bags and they would get covered by the said notification.2. Apart from the arguments on merits, the demand has also been assailed on the point of limitation. We find that the period involved is from 1-5-1994 to 31-3-1995, whereas the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 21-1-1997. Our attention has been drawn to various declarations filed by the appellants who are a small...